Raj Napal

The respondents brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement against the applicant, who had initially sought an interest in a property held by a family trust.

The applicant argued that no binding agreement was reached due to a lack of agreement on the specific terms of a mutual release, which he considered an essential term, and that he entered the agreement under duress.

The court applied contract law principles and Rule 49.09, finding that a mutual intention to settle existed and all essential terms were agreed upon.

It held that the specific wording of a release is not a material term unless explicitly made conditional, and rejected the duress claim due to a lack of credible evidence.

The settlement was enforced, and the applicant's original application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 following a severe single-vehicle collision in Burlington on April 23, 2013.

The accused brought multiple Charter applications challenging the validity of the arrest, the breath demand, and the procedures followed at the hospital.

The court dismissed all Charter applications, finding that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest based on a constellation of factors including the unexplained severe collision, observations of disorientation and unsteadiness, odour of alcohol, admission of alcohol consumption, and physical indicators consistent with impairment.

The court found the accused's rights to counsel were properly respected and that the hospital setting did not prevent adequate privacy for consultation with counsel.

The accused was convicted of impaired driving.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood.

The trial judge found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused for impaired care or control based on the totality of circumstances, including the accused's disorientation, admission of drinking, odour of alcohol, and the manner in which the vehicle was parked on a highway.

However, the trial judge found that the officer breached the accused's Charter rights under section 10(b) by failing to inform him of his right to counsel immediately upon arrest, instead delaying 16 minutes to administer an Approved Screening Device test.

The trial judge excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was acquitted.

The defendants brought motions in two mortgage enforcement proceedings seeking broad relief including setting aside a prior summary judgment, vacating writs of execution and notices of garnishment, and reopening mortgage accounting.

At the hearing, newly retained counsel for the defendants sought an adjournment after acknowledging that the motion materials were unfocused and procedurally unsuitable for many of the issues raised.

The court granted an adjournment in order to narrow the issues, limiting any future motion to whether the mortgage judgment had been satisfied and whether enforcement steps such as writs and garnishments should be lifted.

A related motion in a second mortgage matter was also adjourned, with the court observing that the issues were more appropriately addressed through the mortgage costs assessment process.

Costs were awarded against the moving parties for the unnecessary expense caused by their broad motion materials and subsequent adjournment request.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action alleging negligence and lack of informed consent arising from cosmetic breast augmentation and tummy tuck surgery.

The court excluded the plaintiffs’ expert evidence because the expert lacked familiarity with the Ontario standard of care, leaving no admissible evidence on the negligence claim.

The court therefore dismissed the standard of care allegations but proceeded on the issue of informed consent.

Considering the patient’s limited English proficiency, education, and the circumstances surrounding the consultations and consent forms, the court found that the physician failed to ensure the patient understood the material risks and consequences of the procedures.

The court held that a reasonable person in the patient’s circumstances would not have proceeded had adequate disclosure been made, and awarded damages.